They would walk away. And i know when one of the reasons and i did my homework and you remember for two years, i worked in joint development doing feasibility studies in the land use and so i worked with joint development. I worked with planning and i found out that the 25 that the mission had put in place, not one project was built. So when were looking at that, thats where thats the one amendment im a little worried about, right . , is having that actually could kill a project, if we put it too high. As far as community process, i absolutely agree with you. We should have that community process, community should be involved. As a neighborhood activist, legislative aid and supervisor, i have seen so many of the Development Projects come through that are so much better when the community is involved. But i dont want to put a situation where the community could just kill project after project. I feel Like Community should be there making a project better. So this is kind of my read on t
Model. Let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. George wooding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. I support Affordable Housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mars resolution. I object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be antigrowth. I think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best for the city. As peter just stated, i dont think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of San Francisco. I think sb 50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build Affordable Housing. There is no profit in building Affordable Housing so it forces developers, even wellmeaning once, to build a market rate. Rate. It is a massive give away to deve
Service to those who need it. Thank you. Next speaker. I have lived in the city since 1976. I basically totally oppose sb50. It is so flawed it shouldnt be considered. I support the resolution opposing it. I think it is a good way to deal with a bad thing. I think we have a housing problem decades in the making, and now it is an emergency. That emergency is being used to basically just create or developer give away. I agree it is capitalism out of control, i think. A bigger problem we keep Digging Deeper into the hole. We keep building more and more office space that we dont have housing to support people working in the offices. I think what we should do is stop the development of the offices, play the same game the developers are playing with us, and threaten them with loss of work and huge amounts of money they are making for themselves and investors and get them to the table with us. Another thing that bothers me the only good thing is getting housing close to transit. As another sp
Model. Let it was figure out what the state can do to help, not hurt. Thank you. Next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. George wooding, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods. I support Affordable Housing, and i also am in very much agreement with the board and supervisor mars resolution. I object to the false choice that scott weiner presented the board of supervisors saying if you are not for sb50 you must be antigrowth. I think that was a terrible position to put you in because i know that you are doing the best for the city. As peter just stated, i dont think one size fits all, and definitely the amendments have to take care of different aspects of the city and the character of San Francisco. I think sb 50 billions the market rate housing much more so when you look at arena than it ever did build Affordable Housing. There is no profit in building Affordable Housing so it forces developers, even wellmeaning once, to build a market rate. Rate. It is a massive give away to deve
Agenda his consideration of items proposed for continuance and your short agenda will likely get much shorter. Items one a and b. , conditional use authorization for proposed continuance for august 22nd, 2019. Item two, 50 post street, downtown product or three shes authorization is proposed for continuous august 22nd, 2019. Item three, 121 gates street, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuous to august 29th, 2019. Item four, 367 hamilton avenue, conditional use authorization, proposed for continuance to September September 12th 2019, item five, 2417 green street, is proposed for continuance until september 19th, 2019, item six , 3700 california street, the Draft Environmental Impact report is proposed for continuance to september 19th, 2019. Further, under your consent calendar, item seven, 1501 c. Slow boulevard, conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to october third, 2019. We did receive a request from the lakeshore area Improvement Club to conti